Green shoots?

[Saintandy666]

George Osborne "under pressure" (Boom-boom-boom boom-de-boom-boom)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...essure-economy

Would who is chancellor really make much difference though? Ignoring Gordon Brown who is an exception... aren't most decisions made collectively?

[pap]

Would who is chancellor really make much difference though? Ignoring Gordon Brown who is an exception... aren't most decisions made collectively?

Collective decision-making might have historically been true, but don't forget that Blair's New Labour government dispensed with much of the cabinet government we used to know. Taking a look at the disjointed package of measures of the current Government, there doesn't seem to be much collective thought going on at all.

However, as to your question, would a different chancellor make any difference? I think it probably would, for the following reasons. First, a great deal of the economy is based on confidence, people and institutions parting with their cash because they believe that the economic conditions are good enough for them to earn it back. I'd argue that from that perspective, Osborne is dead in the water. He has failed to deliver results. In any other line of work, he'd be out of the door. Not only that, but he has publicly pursued other agendas ( such as trying to blame Balls for the LIBOR scandal ) at a time when his full focus should be on improving the economy.

Osborne is like most of us, a product of the things he has said and done. He has championed austerity enough times to paint himself into a political corner. Of course, the irony of his austerity plan is that due to our low interest rates, we could actually borrow more for growth and fix some real problems in this country - but with Osborne in play, not going to be anymore than lip service.

The chancellor has staked his political career on austerity being the ticket out of this mess. He's wrong, of course - but is now travelling so fast along austerity highway that he'd be unable to U-Turn even if he wanted to. Quite weird to refer to a multi-millionaire as "austerity personified", but that's exactly what Osborne has become. He's a political albatross hanging limply over the shoulders of the Conservative party. Until they deal with that, the seas of the economy are going to be becalmed - because he really doesn't get it and clearly never has.

[Saintandy666]

Collective decision-making might have historically been true, but don't forget that Blair's New Labour government dispensed with much of the cabinet government we used to know. Taking a look at the disjointed package of measures of the current Government, there doesn't seem to be much collective thought going on at all.

However, as to your question, would a different chancellor make any difference? I think it probably would, for the following reasons. First, a great deal of the economy is based on confidence, people and institutions parting with their cash because they believe that the economic conditions are good enough for them to earn it back. I'd argue that from that perspective, Osborne is dead in the water. He has failed to deliver results. In any other line of work, he'd be out of the door. Not only that, but he has publicly pursued other agendas ( such as trying to blame Balls for the LIBOR scandal ) at a time when his full focus should be on improving the economy.

Osborne is like most of us, a product of the things he has said and done. He has championed austerity enough times to paint himself into a political corner. Of course, the irony of his austerity plan is that due to our low interest rates, we could actually borrow more for growth and fix some real problems in this country - but with Osborne in play, not going to be anymore than lip service.

The chancellor has staked his political career on austerity being the ticket out of this mess. He's wrong, of course - but is now travelling so fast along austerity highway that he'd be unable to U-Turn even if he wanted to. Quite weird to refer to a multi-millionaire as "austerity personified", but that's exactly what Osborne has become. He's a political albatross hanging limply over the shoulders of the Conservative party. Until they deal with that, the seas of the economy are going to be becalmed - because he really doesn't get it and clearly never has.

Interesting post. Just clarify what I meant by collectively, I didn't mean cabinet, more just by a close knit group of the PM and his allies(and I guess enemies as well!).

And I do see your point about confidence, but I still think that global factors are so strong, it might not make a whole lot of difference. A lot of people are apparently calling for Vince Cable now, who I think would make a great chancellor if he was allowed a bit of breathing space. For example, I think his plan for a government investment bank would be a good idea to get money flowing again.

But of course, this is all hypothetical and George Osborne will still be chancellor as long as Cameron is PM, bar some major personal scandal.

[buctootim]

Histrorically the Chancellor has always been independent of the policy making cabinet and Prime Minister - hence the title first Lord of the Treasury. It was set up that way to stop extravagant politicans bankrupting the nation (yes, I know). Gordon Brown used that functional independence to set up a rival power base to Blair.

[trousers]

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...ity-war-chests

British taxpayers are suffering but union bosses are fighting reforms that would ease the pressure on them, while they sit on six-figure pay deals - suggests campaigner

Yesterday morning, many employees of the United Kingdom Border Agency were supposed to be on strike. It was called off by the Public and Commercial Services Union just as we were all arguing over what had made the economy tank by 0.7 per cent, in the second quarter of 2012. The PCS union said it changed its mind after the Home Office had promised to create hundreds of new jobs and increase investment. Mysteriously though, Home Office minister Damien Green denied that the government made any concessions at all. Perhaps, cancelling the strike was just a way of keeping the British Chancellor's woes on the front pages for a little longer.

Either way, the PCS strike would have meant significant disruption to the Olympics with border staff out of action during one of the peak periods that visitors were pouring past the customs desks. And it is not just the PCS that have threatened action during the London 2012 Olympic Games. Train drivers union Aslef is set to strike, affecting the East Midlands Trains during August. And Tube and bus drivers are getting more money for working during the Olympics, after politicians paid them off. Union bosses are clearly ready to play hard-ball to get their way.

Last week, the TaxPayers' Alliance revealed the six-figure remuneration deals that these class warriors receive. For instance, Mark Serwotka of the PCS got pay and benefits of more than £115,000. The bosses at Aslef enjoyed total remuneration of £170,000, although this was split between two of them. The previous boss of Aslef even got £17,000 worth of 'accommodation' benefits. How many taxpayers can hope to receive that kind of help? How many of his own members get such generous perks?

But what does a union baron's pay have to do with taxpayers? They do not pay for it, so what is the problem? The truth is that public sector trade unions have set aside substantial war chests to fight against necessary spending reductions and changes to unaffordable pension schemes. The unions are busy decrying cuts that have not even really happened yet. Even yesterday's woeful gross domestic product numbers showed that government services expanded while other components contracted badly. Taxpayers are suffering but union bosses are fighting reforms that would ease the pressure on them, while they sit on six-figure pay deals.

What is more, the unions they run receive substantial subsidies at taxpayers' expense. In 2010-11, the subsidy amounted to at least £113m both in direct payments and paid staff time. That includes the equivalent of nearly 2,500 staff working exclusively for unions, but paid for by taxpayers to work on the frontline. That means nurses not looking after patients, teachers not teaching children and council totem pole artists not making nice totem poles. That massive subsidy undoubtedly eases pressure on trade union finances, which means more funds to organise industrial action. It could even indirectly support executive pay.

[pap]

Ah, those pesky unions, trousers

How dare they earn 100K+ for representing the interests of tens of thousands?

How dare we give £113M to subsidise their scurrilous activities? We could buy around 1.2 Royal Yachts with that money! And we only gave the banks £45Bn. It's a disgrace ( millions ARE bigger than billions, right? ).

[trousers]

millions ARE bigger than billions, right?

Before or after they've been through Pompey's accounts?

[alpine_saint]

Oh, do p*ss off, pap.

The unions revealled their true colours this week when they tried to hold the country to ransom over the Olympics.

In particular, the Tube drivers were given a grand to secure their co-operation during the Olympics and the RMT have still ordered a work-to-rule. Bastards. I hope the government make the f*ckers suffer when the Olympics are over - I would instruct London Underground management to fire the f*ckers whenever an opportunity (within the law) presents itself.

Bob Crow is a complete c*nt - the power has gone to his head and he really thinks he can bring about administration change with his actions. You only have to look at the statement of his reasoning for this action. Loads of class-war "down-trodden masses" b*ll*cks.

[saintfully]

Oh, do p*ss off, pap.

The unions revealled their true colours this week when they tried to hold the country to ransom over the Olympics.

In particular, the Tube drivers were given a grand to secure their co-operation during the Olympics and the RMT have still ordered a work-to-rule. Bastards. I hope the government make the f*ckers suffer when the Olympics are over - I would instruct London Underground management to fire the f*ckers whenever an opportunity (within the law) presents itself.

Bob Crow is a complete c*nt - the power has gone to his head and he really thinks he can bring about administration change with his actions. You only have to look at the statement of his reasoning for this action. Loads of class-war "down-trodden masses" b*ll*cks.

Pathetic

[pap]

Problem is Alps, even if I took all of this at face value - the positive power of unions over the long term far outweigh the short-term frictions.

Without them, you and I would not be having this conversation. We wouldn't have weekends, our employment rights would be next to nothing, and our kids would be getting chewed up in industrial machinery instead of doing the national curriculum.

But apart from that, yeah, unions are sh!t.

[trousers]

David Cameron just addressed business leaders at an Olympic Investment conference. He pointed out the Malaysian investment into Battersea Power station and mentioned it was on the cover of the Pink Floyd album "Animals". He forgot to mention that album cover also has a flying pig on it....doh!

Oh well, that's tomorrow's Sun headline sorted...

[um pahars]

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...ity-war-chests


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Of all the anti union rants, I have to say the TPA "revelation" that 36 Union leaders earn more than £100k has to be the weakest and most hypocritical one out there.

I've worked at a number of medium and large companies and at some there were more than 36 earning that in one company!! Feck me, without getting too Berty Big Balls, my last P60 before going in to teaching in 2003 was approaching that figure. The average bonus at Barclays Capital was about the same.

When you consider they represent/work for hundreds of thousands of members with income in the millions (my Union leader earns £104k, represents 300,000 professionals and has an annual budget of £40m) and they regular deal with the top mandarins/echelons of Government, then quite rapidly the TPAs argument unravels.

Its almost "Socialist" in terms of jealousy of people earning large sums. Sensational story me up

I'm surprised you used it in an argument Trousers.

[alpine_saint]

Problem is Alps, even if I took all of this at face value - the positive power of unions over the long term far outweigh the short-term frictions.

Without them, you and I would not be having this conversation. We wouldn't have weekends, our employment rights would be next to nothing, and our kids would be getting chewed up in industrial machinery instead of doing the national curriculum.

But apart from that, yeah, unions are sh!t.

People like Crow, Serwotka, McCluskey and all those clueless working-class warrior goons from the 70s like Red Robbo and Scargill, do much, much more damage to the working rights and levels of employment in the UK than any Conservative government does.

For a start they MASSIVELY put off any overseas company from investing their significant expansion budgets in the UK.

We might still have a manufacturing industry to pull ourselves out of the f**king mess the service (financial) sector has dragged us into if they hadnt turned into f**king megalomaniacs.

And a coherent energy policy, because the mines would still be open.

[trousers]

I'm surprised you used it in an argument Trousers.

You're assuming that I wholeheartedly agree with every 3rd party article that I post....

[pap]

People like Crow, Serwotka, McCluskey and all those clueless working-class warrior goons from the 70s like Red Robbo and Scargill, do much, much more damage to the working rights and levels of employment in the UK than any Conservative government does.

For a start they MASSIVELY put off any overseas company from investing their significant expansion budgets in the UK.

We might still have a manufacturing industry to pull ourselves out of the f**king mess the service (financial) sector has dragged us into if they hadnt turned into f**king megalomaniacs.

And a coherent energy policy, because the mines would still be open.

Unless you have an "in" to the various executive boardrooms of multinationals, this is meaningless conjecture, Alps.

It's further eroded by the fact that we have a lot of overseas companies here already, and sorta works on the assumption that labour unions only exist in Britain.

You've identified some of the symptoms, but your diagnosis is unsubstantiated and way off the mark.

Do yourself a favour. Leave the house and go stare at a billboard for a couple of hours. I think it's important you get to see at least one big picture in your life.

[pap]

Article I found in one of my mailshots today:-

http://sharecrazy.com/beta/daily/732...o-lose-his-job

Excerpt:-

Today’s UK GDP numbers are disastrous for George Osborne. Folks do not expect to like Tory chancellors (except perhaps Ken Clarke in his fat, cigar smoking and whisky drinking pomp) but they expect them to be competent. Osborne is now going to be the chancellor who sees the UK lose its AAA rating and it is going to happen soon.

That we still have this rating is a joke. Somehow Osborne has managed to persuade us all that he is curbing Government spending (he is not it is rising in actual terms, in real terms and per head of population) and that he is tackling the deficit (he is not) and so getting national debt under control (he is not). His claims were based on assumptions for growth which were, shall we say, optimistic.

[um pahars]

You're assuming that I wholeheartedly agree with every 3rd party article that I post....

Whilst I accept retweeting or re-posting of articles does not imply approval, but I'm not sure posting of that article and it's ludicrous viewpoint is worthy of even this noddy forum.

I just struggle to comprehend the hypocrisy, sanctimony and sensational claims from the TPA on this one. I'm all up for ensuring taxpayers money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible and that taxes are kept as low as possible, but the TPA really show their true colours here with their right wing gutter press diatribe.

[dune]

Whilst I accept retweeting or re-posting of articles does not imply approval, but I'm not sure posting of that article and it's ludicrous viewpoint is worthy of even this noddy forum.

I just struggle to comprehend the hypocrisy, sanctimony and sensational claims from the TPA on this one. I'm all up for ensuring taxpayers money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible and that taxes are kept as low as possible, but the TPA really show their true colours here with their right wing gutter press diatribe.

Would you say the purchase of 1885 shares in SLH was a prudent use of Saints Trust subs when it was patently obvious that the company was going down the pan?

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19174649

[saintfully]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19174649

Bleak.

On the up-side, the esteemed Mr King is able to share with us his insight that he is confident that growth will return - he just can't predict when or how strong it will be. Genius.

[alpine_saint]

It really is time for Mervyn King to step aside.

He's a f**king negative depressive buffoon, a banking Nero, who dithered and did nothing as the British economy went tittus verticus.

He causes stock markets and share prices to drop, simply by virtue of opening his mouth...

[badgerx16]

He causes stock markets and share prices to drop, simply by virtue of opening his mouth...

As does our 'work experience' chancellor.

[bridge too far]

As does our 'work experience' chancellor.

Interesting article in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...=SOCNETTXT6966

[Jonnyboy]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/...072316990.html



Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne was left red-faced after being roundly booed by the Olympic Stadium crowd when he made an appearance at the Paralympics.

The boos swelled around the Olympic Stadium. Initially the politician tried to laugh it off, but looked progressively more uncomfortable as the booing continued.

Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who presented medals to swimmers earlier in the day, was treated to a full cheer from the crowd when his name was announced.

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19569316

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19567905

[buctootim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19569316

There is a real paradox in that GDP is still falling but the number of people in employment is rising. Something odd, or some miscounting, going on.

[trousers]

There is a real paradox in that GDP is still falling but the number of people in employment is rising. Something odd, or some miscounting, going on.

Maybe people are getting lazier? (i.e. more in work but not working as hard)

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

There is a real paradox in that GDP is still falling but the number of people in employment is rising. Something odd, or some miscounting, going on.

People getting paid less or more people doing less hours i.e. productive work

[buctootim]

Maybe people are getting lazier? (i.e. more in work but not working as hard)

People getting paid less or more people doing less hours i.e. productive work

Have seen distinguished economists discussing the reasons - lots of differing theories, but no-one seems to know. Trousers' theory seems to hold as much water as any

[bridge too far]

Maybe people are getting lazier? (i.e. more in work but not working as hard)

Like posting on here instead of working, you mean?

I wonder if some of the increase is in part-time jobs instead of full time ones? And/or that people who have lost their full time jobs are doing two (or more) part-time ones instead - a sort of double accounting?

I think it's quite disturbing that women seem to be bearing the bulk of unemployment, along with young people, and that the number of people unemployed for more than a year is the highest it's been for 17 years.

[trousers]

Like posting on here instead of working, you mean?

Nah...the unadulterated joy that this forum gives is a catalyst for working more effectively the 14% of the time we're not on here....

[trousers]

@SkyNewsBreak: John Lewis partnership has reported half-year pre-tax profits to the end of July of £144.5m, rise of nearly 60%

[pap]

Business chiefs: We're losing faith in Tories

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8200269.html

Have to say, I do like the sort of questions in this survey!

Mr Osborne's confidence rating has dropped from 63 per cent to 43 per cent. The Chancellor is seen as "out of his depth" by 50 per cent of those surveyed (up from 40 per cent in 2010). Some 51 per cent believe he "seems like he understands business", down from 71 per cent two years ago. Two out of three businessmen think he still "lacks experience" after two and a half years at the Treasury. The proportion who believe he has "the right ideas" about the economy has dropped from 68 per cent to 52 per cent since the election.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...l-outlook.html

[trousers]

BBC News (UK) ‏@BBCNews Full details of UK unemployment figures, including 50,000 drop in jobless total and record number of people in work http://bbc.in/Tb0l1M

"The number of people in employment has not been higher since records began in 1971. According to the ONS, employment measures the number of people in paid work and differs from the number of jobs, because some people have more than one job.

"It's a real landmark to see more people in work than ever before," Employment Minister Mark Hoban said.‪

"Despite the tough economic times, the private sector continues to create jobs and our welfare reforms are encouraging people to return to work - with 170,000 fewer people on the main out-of-work benefits than in May 2010."

Nicholas Palmer from the ONS: "The total level of unemployment is the lowest its been since the spring of 2011"

The government also noted that there were more job opportunities available, with the number of unfilled vacancies at 476,000, up 3,000 on the quarter and 17,000 from the same period last year."

[Colinjb]

I can only speak for my own experience in industry, but the atmosphere out there in the west midlands is a lot brighter then it was in 2009. Business is now there in the manufacturing sector and companies are starting to expand again.

[trousers]

Even people in Pompey are getting off their arses.... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/few...outh-1-4377905

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20010011

There have now been four pieces of good economic news in as many days: inflation, employment, retail sales and now the public finances have all come in better than expected.

The EU Summit even ended in (partial) agreement. No-one's cracking out the champagne, but it's fair to say that the economic picture looks brighter than it has been for a while.

The September borrowing figures will be especially welcome to the chancellor. Thanks to some encouraging growth in revenues, these show the lowest September deficit since 2008.

The Office for National Statistics has also revised down borrowing for the first five months of 2012-13 by a chunky £6.7bn, largely because spending by central government turns out to have been lower than initially thought.

You might remember the July borrowing figures caused a stink when they came out in the middle of August. Excluding the short-term effect of the transfer of Royal mail pension assets, these showed a small deficit of £0.6bn. Even in tough times, July usually shows a surplus, because it's a big month for personal and corporation tax payments.

As many noted at the time, there were short-term factors distorting the headline figure, but it was seen as another sign that the government's deficit strategy was off track.

In today's revised figures, that July deficit has been turned into a £1.75bn surplus. That's still lower than the surplus last year, but it's much closer to the £2.2bn that City forecasters were expecting to see before the 2012 figure came out.

So it looks like we needn't have been so worried after all. Except, it's worth noting that the big disappointment in the initial July figures was tax revenues. These have not been revised up. It is mainly downward revisions in spending that have pushed the month into surplus.

In fact, tax revenues - especially corporation tax revenues - are still coming in quite a lot weaker than the Treasury had hoped. Even including these good September numbers, tax revenues over the first six months of the year have been running 0.8% higher than last year, whereas the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was expecting them to grow by 3.7%.

'One key lesson is the public finance figures are horribly complicated and they get revised a lot. Another is that the revisions can come quite a long time after the fact.

Last year's budget deficit is a good example. Today's release revises up net borrowing in 2011-12 by £2.3bn, to £121.6bn. That sounds bad. But the new figure is itself £4.4bn lower than the OBR thought it would be, at the time of the Budget in March, when it forecast net borrowing for 2011-12 of £126bn.

That makes the new £121.6bn figure sound pretty good. Though it's worth noting that the downward revision in last year's borrowing since March has a downside for the chancellor, because the official borrowing forecast for this year is still £120bn.

He wouldn't have to come in far above his initial forecast for Ed Balls to be able to say that the deficit was rising, not falling, under the coalition (sorry, but I told you nothing on this subject was simple).

How likely is it that the OBR will have to revise up its borrowing forecast? Well, the final big lesson is that when it comes to the public finances, it ain't over until it's over. You can't say anything definitive after six months of data, because the figures bounce around an enormous amount, even when they're not being revised.

For what it's worth, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that borrowing for the whole year will come in £15bn over forecast if central government tax revenues continue to grow as slowly as they have in the first six months, and everything else turns out as forecast.

Others in the City, making different assumptions, reckon that Mr Osborne might be looking at an overshoot of around £6bn.

Whatever happens, we know the chancellor in his Autumn Statement is likely to be facing some difficult fiscal arithmetic for 2013 and beyond. But we can say for sure that the UK economy has had a good week. And the Treasury has had a good month.

[trousers]

@SkyNewsBreak: Debenhams announces pre-tax profit for the last year of £158.3m - up 4.2%

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20078231

UK economy returns to growth with help from Olympics

The UK economy emerged from recession in the three months from July to September, helped by the Olympic Games.
The economy grew by 1.0%, according to official gross domestic product figures (GDP), which measure the value of everything produced in the country.
The Office for National Statistics said that Olympic ticket sales had added 0.2 percentage points to the figures.
All Olympic and Paralympic ticket sales counted towards July to September's GDP figure.
The ONS said that beyond the effect of ticket sales it was hard to put an exact figure on the Olympic effect, although it cited increased hotel and restaurant activity in London as well as strength from employment agencies.
The GDP figures were also enhanced by comparison with the previous three months, because the second quarter had an extra public holiday as part of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in in June.
The economy had been in recession for the previous nine months and has still not recovered the levels of output seen before the financial crisis in 2008.
The ONS said that since the financial crisis the economy had recovered about half of its output.
The level of GDP in the third quarter of 2012 was almost exactly the same as it had been in the third quarter of 2011.

[bridge too far]

Trousers, you're as predictable as night following day.

[trousers]

Trousers, you're as predictable as night following day.

Aye. You wanna see how confused I get when the clocks go back this weekend

[trousers]

Robert Peston ‏@Peston
I suspect Treasury would have liked GDP figure to have been less strong. Risk of return to stagnation after big one-offs drop out.

[buctootim]

UK economy returns to growth with help from Olympics

Whats the plan for the next quarter Trousers?

[CB Saint]

Cue media frenzy about triple dip...

[trousers]

Whats the plan for the next quarter Trousers?

Concentrate on expanding the 80% portion of the growth figures that wasn't attributed to the Olympics? Just a hunch

[trousers]

Cue media frenzy about triple dip...

Indeed. The UK goes 0.1% into recession and the doom mongers are gleefully over it like a rash, yet go 1% into growth (albeit partially down to the Olympics) and the same doom mongers talk it down as being insignificant.

I've some cake here if anyone would like to have it? You can eat it too.

[buctootim]

Concentrate on expanding the 80% portion of the growth figures that wasn't attributed to the Olympics? Just a hunch

Au contraire my little optimist. 0.2% was attributable to Olympic ticket sales themselves. The statisticians couldnt calculate the individual effect of things like hotel rooms booked from overseas vistors, holidays by UK residents spent in the UK instead of abroad, restaurants etc. FWIW I think we ar past the worst, but the recovery is going to be slow and sluggish simply because of all the money being taken out of the economy by budget cuts.

[trousers]

Au contraire my little optimist. 0.2% was attributable to Olympic ticket sales themselves. The statisticians couldnt calculate the individual effect of things like hotel rooms booked from overseas vistors, holidays by UK residents spent in the UK instead of abroad, restaurants etc. FWIW I think we ar past the worst, but the recovery is going to be slow and sluggish simply because of all the money being taken out of the economy by budget cuts.

Damnation.....you found me out....optimist....guilty as charged m'lud